Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 19 Jun 2008 07:34

> In a week, we shall be seeing the end of our strategic nuclear weapons program

the deal is a one way ticket into capping India's nuclear program.

expect more con-artistry to be sneaked into the deal as time goes by with all kinds of restrictions and limitations.

only india is stupid enough to have others define limits for its nuclear program. china would never put any such thing up for negotiation.

besides that, no country can build a credible deterrent based on one failed h-bomb test.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jun 2008 07:57

ramdas wrote:Finally, as the rootless elite always wanted, we shall meekly cave in to all TSP and PRC demands only to maintain 9% economic growth.

I have a quibble with this statement. Here is my take on the issue (and I am willing to hear other viewpoints)

The elite were wealthy and doing fine even when the growth rate was a "Hindu growth rate" of 4.5%. The only people who can possibly benefit by a higher growth rate are the immediate sub-elite - i.e. those who are just below the elite.

The "rootless elite" of India are primarily drawn from the forward caste people. In contrast many of these "sub elites" are the middle castes who have been empowered both by a massive expansion in education as well as jobs, and the caste based reservation that has pulled them in. These are the people who are seeing an improvement in their businesses (small shops, agri-products) and services (drivers, contractors) and, for the first time in modern India - they are breaking into the skilled segment like engineers and doctors and IT enabled services.

Note that even this 9% firangi and unpatriotic rate of growth will not touch the worst off - the lowest sub-castes of India in the short to medium term

With respect may I point out ramana's statement to rangudu "Its not like we have personal stakes here". That statement is true for existing wealthy elites like me. I will continue to remain wealthy and empowered either way with or without the deal. I foresee that even if Petrol prices touch Rs 150 a litre (from the current Rs 55 to 60) I will be able to shrug them off.

A return to the Hindu rate of growth merely in order to show that we have as long a danda as China and Pakistan combined will slow down the economic progress of the sub-elite segment.It will not affect the elites. It will affect a segment to which the elites do not belong.

One of the arguments that can be made about modern Indian history is not only that the Muslim elite lost their power, but it is also a gradual erosion of power of the caste elite who were already wealthy and empowered by the time of independence. The sense of "who is a patriotic Indian?" may be different for the caste elite and different for the non elite. Unfortunately, the upper caste elite, who oversaw the defeat of India have lost moral authority along with their power and will have to learn to be careful about who they call as real deshbhakts.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Jun 2008 08:08

shiv wrote:

One of the arguments that can be made about modern Indian history is not only that the Muslim elite lost their power, but it is also a gradual erosion of power of the caste elite who were already wealthy and empowered by the time of independence. The sense of "who is a patriotic Indian?" may be different for the caste elite and different for the non elite. Unfortunately, the upper caste elite, who oversaw the defeat of India have lost moral authority along with their power and will have to learn to be careful about who they call as real deshbhakts.

The middle class which has developed in the last 30 years is the key which has a common view of its common history and a common world view. This middle class was not there before in the entire history of India. They have made the elite lose its moral authority and that is mostly the voice of the deshbakths and we see here in BRF.
This term caste elite is a misnomer since one they are rich elite this does not apply to them.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Jun 2008 08:09

Rangudu wrote:If this deal is consummated (a big If), within 6-7 years, we'd see rapidly increasing FDI in infrastructure based on the expectation of a large number of reactors coming online.
Forecasting beyond 10 years is fraught with more uncertainties but my biggest predicted outcome from this deal is an India that breaks through the current infrastructure barrier that threatens our 10% growth in the near future.

We will watch these words as things unfold.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Jun 2008 08:18

Rangudu wrote:
Acharya wrote:With talk of even making sure that other parties dont come to power there is more urgency to get this deal under scrutiny. But this deal has been put together by lobbies who never came together before. That is the new thing in the current situation. The lobbies are not looking after the security interest of India and are actually working with the NPAs to get this deal passed.
With all due respect, what is all the underlined stuff if they are not conspiracy theories? Who are "they" and what evidence do you have that "they" are working with NPAs or trying to ensure certain Indian parties do not come to power?

Why can't we have a simple, fact based debate without making everything a part of some sinister global conspiracy to nuke nood India?

PS, I had requested you on the old thread to explain what you meant by your last reply to me. Thanks.

What is conspiracy theory here. I dont understand.
I have met lobby people who have met the US congress members and US senate members. They have told me what are the views of the lawmakers. They have told me who they represent. There are think tanks in DC who have been hired by the govt and business and they are in the reported in the press. There are India focused think tanks AIPAC, USINPAC etc. Is that conspiracy. New ones got created in the last 5 years and they have lobbied hard for the deal. That is a fact also.
Some of these people have told me that they have met the NPAs. It does not take much effort to get these information. All are facts. If you have no access to these info I cant help it.

About parties not allowed to come back to power - you can get the statements of political leaders in the Indian newspapers. Talk to some seasoned political operators in Desh and you can get all the information. Jesus!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jun 2008 08:25

Acharya wrote: This term caste elite is a misnomer since one they are rich elite this does not apply to them.

Actually this is mere semantics. Caste matters less and less the richer you become, and that is why the rich, having become rich based on caste hierarchy now find it politically convenient to make the kind of statement that you are making.

The two distinct advantages for the elite in shedding caste are as follows:

1) They no longer have to take the blame for the actions of their ancestors in losing india even as they continue to enjoy the fruits of the education and power that their ancestors had. Shedding the "forward caste tag' insulates them (to a small extent) from a rebound reverse discrimination.

2) They shed their caste tag and caste references in order to "belong" better to the Western Judeo-Christian ideals of a casteless society, and their association with that society (the West) is what makes the old rich (and coincidentally high caste) rootless and further insulated from the economic upheavals of Indian on the ground. Those who retain their roots retain their caste too.

if you look at the 95% of Indians who are NOT rich elite - caste matters a lot because that is what has defined their poor past, and with reservation, that is what will define a possibly brighter future.

Naturally the rich elite seek to downplay caste and play semantics with its socio-economic effects. Their ancestors have already squeezed out as much caste advantage as possible - and now "forward" caste is a disadvantage and needs to be discarded. In a few decades we will also see the newly empowered middle casts shedding their caste tag when they find that laws like "creamy layer exclusion" will exclude them from benefits. They will then downplay the very caste that is giving them advantages today.

Acharya wrote: that is mostly the voice of the deshbakths and we see here in BRF.

I wonder if we can have a poll on BRF in which people anonymously declare their caste. That would really give us a true picture of caste distribution of BRF deshbhakts. But it would require honesty in declaration.

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 19 Jun 2008 09:41

Prem wrote:If this Deal go though then it has the potential to cook Commie goose for good. Their utility to their masters will diminsh greatly.

That in itself makes this worthwhile in my eyes. And I see we have hit new lows or highs on the accusations in this debate.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 19 Jun 2008 09:44

RamaY wrote:Is it end-deal?

Lefties do not want GOI to go to NSG because, it would force China to show its card at NSG... which is, AGAINST India centric exemption... so they are using their proxy to do their work.. and china looks good...

according to left the deal will be on auto-pilot after IAEA and even if left opposes after that it would be of no consequence.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Jun 2008 10:04

http://www.fes.de/ipg/inhalt_d/pdf/Meier_GB.pdf

http://www.fas.org/press/_docs/Markey_TRANSCRIPT-1.pdf

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/india_as_a ... ear_power/

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/ ... r_deal.php

http://proliferationpress.wordpress.com ... overnment/

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 83,00.html

nkumar · Post by **nkumar** » 19 Jun 2008 10:12

BK in WSJ-livemint, excerpts:

Specifically, a Democratic Party president will mean the return to power of the non-proliferation ideologues such as Strobe Talbott, Robert J. Einhorn and their ilk, who are keen to see India, nuclear-wise, tied hand and foot, than adjust to a world of many nuclear weapon powers. The US senator from Illinois and presidential candidate, prompted by these people, inserted the “Obama Amendment” into the 2006 Hyde Act—the US law enabling civil nuclear cooperation between India and the US. It mandates that, at any given time, any imported nuclear power plant will be allowed to stock up only just enough fuel to meet its “operational requirements”, not an ounce more of enriched uranium. The slack the George W. Bush administration tried to build into the legislation permitting India to build up a stockpile of low-enriched uranium to last the lifetime of each imported reactor, thereby addressing Indian fears of arbitrary fuel cutoff (not that this made any material difference to an inherently bad deal), this amendment pointedly took away. Other than the ban on testing imposed by the Hyde Act, which will ensure India forever remains a small, inconsequential, nuclear weapon state, and that its weapon technology wastes away over time, this amendment amounts to guaranteeing this country passes quickly into the ranks of an energy dependency as well, because fuel supply can be severed at the first hint of India not hewing to the American line on some or the other major foreign, economic and military policy line.

Worse, the country will be stuck with a huge dead investment in the form of a host of non-functional reactors to add to our other woes. So, instead of bemoaning energy shortfalls and peddling a nuclear deal manifestly hurtful of the national security interest as a panacea, why has Manmohan Singh not fast-tracked indigenous uranium mining operations and invested in indigenous INDU/CANDU reactors?

Indian history in any case is replete with instances of foreign powers being helped to realize their nefarious designs by Indian insiders and collaborators. The misbegotten nuclear deal is only the latest example of this sad and debilitating historical reality.

The US has traditionally been extremely legalistic in interpreting international agreements, especially regarding obligations undertaken by other countries (with little or no sanctity being accorded its own treaty commitments, to wit, the 1963 Tarapur Agreement requiring Washington to uninterruptedly provide the American-supplied reactor with fuel for its lifetime, which was broken with impunity). With Obama, a Harvard-trained lawyer, at the helm, Washington can be expected to realize the Hyde Act in its minutiae. This will leave New Delhi with no room for manoeuvre or for escape from the punitive provisions of this Act—the irrelevant 123 Agreement or no 123 Agreement.

Full article is here

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 19 Jun 2008 10:43

I am an olive skinned Brahmin but not rich by any standard.

There is no fix formula that we can follow regarding economy and our strategic weapons' program. Each decision we take will be a result of a cost - benefit analysis. There are some weapons that are indispensable and we cannot give them up in exchange for better economy. Similarly, we cannot give up the economy for the sake of a weapon.

The minimum requirement of India in the weapons' department is to maintain a deterrent against China/Pakistan duo. This need of India cannot be compromised. And to the best of my knowledge, Americans understand this need. But since I am not a babu, I cannot say for sure.
The ideal situation for India would be to have a nuclear arsenal of 10k warheads and a capability to hit anyone anywhere anytime. In order for this to happen, we will have to lock horns with USA. The result will be sanctions and many more hardships. Is it a wise thing to do to lock horns with USA today? In my humble opinion, the answer is no.

The right thing to do would be to assure USA that our nuclear arsenal and delivery system is for the pleasure of China/Pakistan duo only. Range cap on Agni and number cap on nukes would be our humble gift to USA in exchange for their help in lifting ban on India in international nuke bazaar such as NSG and so on.

I see nothing wrong with nuclear deal. We will get access to much needed electricity. Our missile development program will continue in stages just like it is today. We will continue to do undetected underground tests. And, so on.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 19 Jun 2008 10:55

And to the best of my knowledge, Americans understand this need. But since I am not a babu, I cannot say for sure.
The ideal situation for India would be to have a nuclear arsenal of 10k warheads and a capability to hit anyone anywhere anytime. In order for this to happen, we will have to lock horns with USA. The result will be sanctions and many more hardships. Is it a wise thing to do to lock horns with USA today? In my humble opinion, the answer is no.

There is no evidence that the Americans understand our needs. In fact, they would like to CRE India so as to leave it totally dependent on America's goodwill for defence against China/Pak .. like a South Korea/Japan. This is clearly what the N-Deal does. It is a CRE deal. India, which could have become a major power like China, would now be a big South Korea/Japan. This is the shame.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 19 Jun 2008 11:00

Still, there is a remote hope that in the interests of "secularism", the govt may cave in to the left. In that case, the commies would have really saved the nation's sovereignity . Hope this happens. The commies, to give them their due, have been firm.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 19 Jun 2008 11:08

shiv wrote:I had a question in the old thread. I shall re post

What if the nuclear deal is signed - say in 3 months time.

What will happen to India (as a consequence of the deal) in

1) 10 years
2) 20 years
3) 50 years

Since we have limited access to petroleum, I foresee emergence of electric car industry in India. People will drive their cars and when they need new battery, they will pull inside a service station powered by a nuclear plant nearby. They turn in the old battery, get the new battery and drive away. I see a pollution free India.

In next 20 years:

Our weapon's design will improve tremendously. We might want to do some testing at this stage or may be not. It will all depend on where the technology of the future has taken us.

We will have landed on the moon. Our BMD will be up and running. We will see more luxurious flats and less zhopadi.

If we do not get what was promised to us then we will be back to pissing on the tent.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 19 Jun 2008 11:16

ramdas wrote:
And to the best of my knowledge, Americans understand this need. But since I am not a babu, I cannot say for sure.
The ideal situation for India would be to have a nuclear arsenal of 10k warheads and a capability to hit anyone anywhere anytime. In order for this to happen, we will have to lock horns with USA. The result will be sanctions and many more hardships. Is it a wise thing to do to lock horns with USA today? In my humble opinion, the answer is no.
There is no evidence that the Americans understand our needs. In fact, they would like to CRE India so as to leave it totally dependent on America's goodwill for defence against China/Pak .. like a South Korea/Japan. This is clearly what the N-Deal does. It is a CRE deal. India, which could have become a major power like China, would now be a big South Korea/Japan. This is the shame.

You could be correct. As I said, I am not an Indian babu who deals with American babus. So, I really do not know. I am just going by the public statements made by both governments. There were plenty of statements made in Indian parliament and US congress that seem to display an understanding that India is not going to give up its weapons' program. Period.

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 19 Jun 2008 11:20

Obama, a Harvard-trained lawyer, at the helm, Washington can be expected to realize the Hyde Act in its minutiae. This will leave New Delhi with no room for manoeuvre

IMHO Obama if elected pres will be long gone before any of these EVEN have the potential to play a role.

Having outsourced my own thinking and just relying on observations, my own opinion is like this - if those like Brajesh Mishra and even L K Advani have no major issues, or have the confidence to be able to work out long term issues, whats the real issue, other than political legacy If this means digging the grave for the chinese left, I want to know where they are handing out spades to begin the excavation work - we need a large and deep enough hole lest theres leakage.

Off topic:
Shivji, your last set of posts were very interesting. I find myself nodding in agreement as to the possibility of things having played themselves out the way you have described. Super fine observations sar.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 19 Jun 2008 11:27

IIRC Kapil Sibal has been GoI's point person to explain the legal and procedural matters pertaining to the deal. It is liklely that he told Karat how the IAEA safeguards does not autmoatically lead to 123 approval or next steps with US.

The above was from the last thread.

Signing the IAEA safeguards makes us irrevocably committed to separation right? Once this is signed, if the NSG waiver is not clean and closely matches Hyde, then what? Since we are already committed to separation, can we back out?

Since the IAEA agreement is not public, nobody outside the elite few know what's in there and how stringent everything is (or not). Why not make it public?

We need to see NSG waiver language before signing off on the IAEA agreement (which anyway is claimed to be frozen and ready for signing). That way 123 won't matter if COTUS doesn't agree.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 19 Jun 2008 11:33

I used to be in favor of the deal but then I started reading posts on BRF and that confused this villager big time. Man Mohan Singh (the most powerful Indian) himself has assured in the parliament that the deal will not compromise India's strategic program. What more do we need?

Is Man Mohan Singh lying? If the answer is yes, what is his motive for lying to the country?

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 19 Jun 2008 11:41

IAEA safeguards are reactor specific. They will only apply to reactors, which will use fuel supplied under NSG auspices. If there is no fuel from them (NSG) then there is no safeguard to apply. That is my understanding.

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 19 Jun 2008 12:50

Atoms for peace
Why is a progressive nuclear initiative bringing out the worst in Indian politics?
R. K. Pachauri
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/324672.html

The man recieves American awards and then faithfully pushes their agenda in his own country in gratitude.

nkumar · Post by **nkumar** » 19 Jun 2008 12:58

Karan Dixit wrote:Man Mohan Singh (the most powerful Indian) himself has assured in the parliament that the deal will not compromise India's strategic program. What more do we need?

Problem is that his assurances are not reflected in 123 agreement. I will give you 2 examples (full civilian nuclear cooperation, fuel supply) you decide for yourself if these assurances are fulfilled.

PM on Aug 17, 2006 in Parliament (taken from PM's website)

"Full Civil Nuclear Cooperation : The central imperative in our discussions with the United State on Civil Nuclear Cooperation is to ensure the complete and irreversible removal of existing restrictions imposed on India through iniquitous restrictive trading regimes over the years. We seek the removal of restrictions on all aspects of cooperation and technology transfers pertaining to civil nuclear energy ‑ ranging from nuclear fuel, nuclear reactors, to re-processing spent fuel, i.e. all aspects of a complete nuclear fuel cycle."

But after 123 was revealed, MMS said this in Parliament on Aug 13, 2007

"The concept of full civil nuclear cooperation has been clearly enshrined in this Agreement. The Agreement stipulates that uch cooperation will include nuclear reactors and aspects of the associated nuclear fuel cycle, including technology transfer on industrial or commercial scale. It would also include development of a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of our reactors. "

Note that (a) 'all aspects' of the fuel cycle has become 'associated aspects' of fuel cycle and (b) strategic reserve has been carefully negated by obama amendment to Hyde. This is highlighted in the last 2 articles that I posted.

In addition to above, Article 5(2) of 123 says - "Sensitive nuclear technology, heavy water production technology, sensitive nuclear facilities, heavy water production facilities and major critical compoments of such facilities may be transferred under this Agreement pursuant to an amendment to this agreement." So, where is the full civilian nuclear cooperation that is assured by PM to the Parliament on more than one occasion?

The intent and spirit of J18 is not reflected in 123. 123 also stated that, "The United Stated will join India in seeking to negotiate with the IAEA and India-specific fuel supply agreement." But what did we see? Constant reminders that how time is running out, India should conclude her IAEA agreement soon. US reneged on this aspect too.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 19 Jun 2008 14:28

Put The Ball In Their Court
Brahma Chellany

The blame game on the nuclear deal has begun in earnest. "It is now an Indian problem", says Henry Kissinger. "India needs to make some tough choices", chips in US commerce secretary Carlos Gutierrez. Instead of putting the onus on India, why doesn't the US do its part and present New Delhi a final deal it cannot rebuff? After all, the deal has yet to be ratified by the US Congress or considered by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), a cartel the US helped establish in response to India's 1974 test.

Before India plays its last card, shouldn't America secure an NSG rule-change and congressional ratification? That card involves taking the safeguards accord to the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) governing board for approval. That is a small step, given that the text of the accord has already been finalised and "frozen". The Americans can now easily take this text to the NSG and their Congress for the necessary approvals so that New Delhi knows the final terms of the deal before it forfeits that last card. Given the distinct possibility of the deal attracting more grating conditions as it traverses the next stages, shouldn't India know the deal's closing terms before it approaches the IAEA board? Can India tie its hands before the final deal is clear?

Even a quick look at the original July 18, 2005 agreement-in-principle will show that India's obligations were merely reciprocal to America's actions. That accord first lays out America's obligations, with the US president committed to seek "agreement from Congress to adjust US laws and policies, and...work with friends and allies to adjust international regimes to enable full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India". It then defines India's part as occurring in return: "The prime minister conveyed that for his part, India would reciprocally agree that it would be ready to assume the same responsibilities and practices and acquire the same benefits and advantages as other leading countries with advanced nuclear technology, such as the US".

Along the way, however, the sequence was reversed, to India's disadvantage. The original terms also got changed. Today, there is not even the pretence that the deal offers "full civil nuclear energy cooperation", or that India is set to "acquire the same benefits and advantages" as the US. What is on offer is restricted cooperation tied to conditions that require India, among others, to brook a permanent test ban; to grant an open-ended right to the US to suspend fuel supplies forthwith simply by issuing a one-year termination notice; to forego reprocessing of spent fuel until it has, in the indeterminate future, won a separate, congressionally vetted agreement; and to agree to route not just spent fuel of US-origin but all "foreign nuclear material" through a costly new dedicated reprocessing facility, for which no components are to be allowed to be imported because of a wider continual ban.

The Next Steps in Strategic Partnership initiative was designed to help ease US technology controls against India in three separate areas - high technology, civilian space and commercial nuclear power. These three areas became known as the "trinity". Yet, instead of a broad deal covering all the "trinity" issues, the US offered a deal in just one area where its commercial interests were dominant - the revival of its moribund nuclear power industry. An enduring strategic partnership with the US will clearly aid Indian interests. But can such a partnership emerge without the US delivering on the other "trinity" areas - high-technology and civilian space cooperation?

While the nuclear deal has required complex actions - a change in US law, a so-called 123 agreement and a proposed NSG waiver- the opening of civilian space and high- technology cooperation with India merely demanded US executive action. By elastically interpreting existing US law and applying to India the same standards it does to another non-NPT-state, Israel, Washington could have opened the doors to civilian space and high-technology cooperation.

Instead, the US Congress has audaciously cross-linked civil nuclear cooperation to the continuance of US export controls against New Delhi in another "trinity" area, with the Hyde Act stipulating that US missile sanctions law (which prohibits dual-use space exports) will still apply to India even after it "unilaterally adheres" to the US-led Missile Technology Control Regime as part of the current deal.

That the deal could be subject to even more conditions is a real concern. First, the US has declined to share with India its revised "pre-decisional" proposal to the NSG. Its first proposal, submitted before the Hyde Act's passage, sought to make the test ban on India a multilateral reality. Its latest proposal is said to add new conditions that mesh with the Hyde Act's constraints. Second, congressional ratification could follow the 1985 example, when the attachment of three extraneous conditions held up the US-China nuclear deal for 13 years. The Hyde Act indeed states that it will be open to Congress to "pass a joint resolution of approval with conditions" by giving up "the expedited procedures" that permit a simple up-or-down vote.

Before seeking to force India's hand, the US ought to present a final deal. A deal that comes with "clean" NSG and congressional approvals and with transparent, just terms will win bipartisan Indian support. The ball should now be in America's court because India has already delivered on issues ranging from a civil-military separation plan to a safeguards accord.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jun 2008 14:34

nkumar wrote: inserted the “Obama Amendment” into the 2006 Hyde Act[/b]—the US law enabling civil nuclear cooperation between India and the US. It mandates that, at any given time, any imported nuclear power plant will be allowed to stock up only just enough fuel to meet its “operational requirements”, not an ounce more of enriched uranium.

I have the Hyde act in front of me on my computer. It is a 61 page pdf. A word search does not reveal the name "Obama" anywhere

The word "operational" occurs only once on page 11:

(D) changes in the purpose or operational status of any
unsafeguarded nuclear fuel cycle activities in India.

No mention exists of the words "Operational requirements"

But, the word "fuel" occurs dozens of times. Only one reference consistently relates to the amount of fuel India will get (within the act itself), repeated in the explanatory notes later:
Page 4 Section 103 b(10)

(10) Any nuclear power reactor fuel reserve provided to the
Government of India for use in safeguarded civilian nuclear fa-
cilities should be commensurate with reasonable reactor oper-
ating requirements.

In the explanatory notes:

Page 40 says

On March 6, 2006, the Indian Prime Minister told the Indian
Parliament that the U.S. Government had said that if a disruption
of fuel supplies to India occurs, the U.S. would, with India, jointly
convene a group of friendly supplier countries, such as Russia,
France and the United Kingdom, to pursue such measures as
would restore fuel supply to India. The conferees understand and
expect that such assurance of supply arrangements that the U.S.
is party to will be concerned only with disruption of supply of fuel
due to market failures or similar reasons, and not due to Indian
actions that are inconsistent with the July 18, 2005, commitments,
such as a nuclear explosive test.

Page 43

India’s March 2006 nuclear facility separation plan stated:
‘‘The United States will support an Indian effort to develop a stra-
tegic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of sup-
ply over the lifetime of India’s reactors.’’ Congress has not been
able to determine precisely what was said on this matter in high-
level U.S.-Indian discussions. U.S. officials testified, however, that
the United States does not intend to help India build a stockpile
of nuclear fuel for the purpose of riding out any sanctions that
might be imposed in response to Indian actions such as conducting
another nuclear test. The conferees understand that nuclear reac-
tor facilities commonly have some fresh fuel stored, so as to mini-
mize down time when reactor cores are removed. They endorse the
Senate proposal, however, that there be a clear U.S. policy that any
fuel reserve provided to India should be commensurate with nor-
mal operating requirements for India’s safeguarded reactors.

I would like to see more information about the Obama modification and the rhetorical refernce to "not an ounce more" of fuel.

amit · Post by **amit** » 19 Jun 2008 14:53

ramdas wrote:In a week, we shall be seeing the end of our strategic nuclear weapons program if the commies fail to kill the deal. Very soon, we shall be cooperating towards an FMCT, leaving even TSP with a larger. more effective nuclear deterrent. Finally, as the rootless elite always wanted, we shall meekly cave in to all TSP and PRC demands only to maintain 9% economic growth.
The DAE itself will be emasculated by scientists moving to the private sector which will enter the nuclear business as well. The multidisciplinary and unique capabilities of the DAE will then wither away.

Bhishma Pitamaha will however, be very happy. After all, according to Bhishma pitamaha, nukes no longer matter, knowledge alone does. National self respect is after all for those crude peasant like people, no ?

What a shame !!! Unless the macaulayist elite are stripped out of their positions of power, nothing better can happen. Zero economic growth for the time being but strategic independence would have been a better option. I still hope that the commies save the country by making the UPA cave in to them. Hope the next govt. completely negates this deal. It did not have majority parliamentary support.

Ramdas,

For a long time you've been advocating the idea that Zero economic growth is fine as long as we have so-called "strategic independence".

I'm curious, do you think "strategic independence" can be had with a begging bowl in your hand? Please explain what a fat lot of good it would do if we have "strategic independence" with zero economic growth? Also how exactly can something like strategic independence be so unidimensional as to not include things like state of the economy, conventional military strength etc and just depend on whether we have (or not have) a "crimping" deal with the US?

Do you think then we could explode as many devices as we want without anyone saying anything as long as we don't lose our "strategic independence" by signing the deal?

Also what makes you think that the vast majority of Indians would settle for zero economic growth so that they can have this so-called "strategic independence" to test whenever they want. Mind you, it has not been conclusively proven - despite all the hyperbole - that someone will physically prevent India from testing again if it so desires, even after siging the N-deal.

Afterall if we can happily suffer zero economic growth now, we could also do so after the N-deal in a future date when we may want to test due to whatever reason.

Also, I find it very amusing that folks here are beating their chests and bleating about the conspiracy being hatched by the "macaulayist elite" using the English language and sitting in lands far away from Mother India (me included).

Do you somehow think that you don't belong to this hateful "elite"? Please don't take offence to this question, I'm asking to know, because it may very well be that you don't belong to the "elite".

And I would be very careful in using the adage enemy's enemy is my friend when praising the communists. For example do you think that the BJP and the CPI(M) have the same ulterior motive in opposing the deal? If they do hey, after next election NDA can come to power with the help of the Prakash Karat's of this world - after all the broad foreign policy objectives of the BJP and CPI(M) are the same, oppose US at all costs. And as far as domestic economic policies are concerned there's not much to chose between the UPA and the NDA and I'm sure Karat can live with Advani if he could, for four years, live with MMS.

Cheers!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jun 2008 15:23

The blame game on the nuclear deal has begun in earnest. "It is now an Indian problem", says Henry Kissinger. "India needs to make some tough choices", chips in US commerce secretary Carlos Gutierrez. Instead of putting the onus on India, why doesn't the US do its part and present New Delhi a final deal it cannot rebuff? After all, the deal has yet to be ratified by the US Congress or considered by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), a cartel the US helped establish in response to India's 1974 test.

Oh boy. Now BC is getting into blame game too!!!! What next conspiracy theories?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jun 2008 15:34

would like to see more information about the Obama modification and the rhetorical refernce to "not an ounce more" of fuel.

You are looking for it in the wrong place. The Hyde Act is the final version of an agreement that was hacked in teh US Congress. Try this, it a lot to wade thru' but this is the process. It is during this process that he made the changes.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 19 Jun 2008 15:46

I would like to see more information about the Obama modification and the rhetorical refernce to "not an ounce more" of fuel.

Barack Obama's legacy weighs down U.S.-India nuclear deal

1. The first amendment was an innovative insertion that imposed fetters on uranium-poor India’s access to fuel, restricting such imports to “reasonable reactor operating requirements.” Obama’s amendment not only undercut the stated raison d'être of the original deal — “full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India” — but also busted Dr. Manmohan Singh’s March 7, 2006, assurance to Parliament that New Delhi would secure the right to build lifetime fuel stocks to guard against supply disruption. Furthermore, it shattered the claim in India’s Separation Plan that, “The U.S. will support an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of India’s reactors.”

Obama’s Senate Amendment 5169, passed by a voice vote, stated: “It is the policy of the United States that any nuclear power reactor fuel reserve provided to the Government of India for use in safeguarded civilian nuclear facilities should be commensurate with reasonable reactor operating requirements.” The House of Representatives had proposed no such restriction. Obama’s amendment, which became Section 114 of the Senate bill, found its way into the final legislation as Section 103 (b) (10) of the Hyde Act.

The amendment’s avowed purpose was to “clarify U.S. policy in order to deter nuclear testing.” That meshed with what Obama stated on the Senate floor. Consider the following exchange in the Senate:

Obama: On a related note, is it the chairman’s interpretation of the legislation that, in the event of a future nuclear test by the Government of India, nuclear power reactor fuel and equipment sales, and nuclear technology cooperation would terminate; other elements of the U.S. -India nuclear agreement would likely terminate; and the U.S. would have the right to demand the return of nuclear supplies?

Lugar: Yes, under our bill, the only requirement which is waived is that in Section 123.a(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 — for full-scope safeguards. India’s 123 Agreement would still have to meet the requirement of Section 123.a(4), which requires that in the event of a test by India of a nuclear-explosive device, the U.S. shall have the right to request the return of supplies as you have stipulated.

Obama: I offered an amendment that the managers have already accepted pertaining to the supply of nuclear power reactor fuel in safeguarded civilian nuclear facilities. To further clarify this issue, is it the managers’ understanding that provision of fuel to the Government of India should be sized in a way to maintain a deterrent to Indian nuclear testing, while also providing protections against short-term fluctuations in the supply of nuclear fuel? In other words, is it your understanding that providing a fuel reserve to India is not intended to facilitate resumption in nuclear testing?

Lugar: Yes, that is our understanding.

Obama: Does the chairman believe that, as this agreement moves forward to the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG), the U.S. should work to ensure that other nations provide nuclear power reactor fuel in a similar fashion?

Lugar: Yes, I hope that would be the case.

The “deterrent against Indian testing” Obama sought by keeping India on a tight fuel-access leash is a goal enthusiastically embraced by the full Congress in passing the Hyde Act. According to the Act’s accompanying explanatory statement, the fuel reserve provided to New Delhi should not be “of a size that would enable India to break its commitments, or end its moratorium on nuclear testing, and [still] maintain its civil nuclear energy production despite unilateral or international sanctions.” It also records that U.S. officials, contradicting Dr. Singh’s lifetime-fuel claim in Parliament, had testified that America “does not intend to help India build a stockpile of nuclear fuel for the purpose of riding out any sanctions that might be imposed in response to Indian actions such as conducting another nuclear test.”

Without defining what constitutes a “reasonable” fuel requirement, the Act circumscribes India’s fuel access to “some fresh fuel stored, so as to minimize down time when reactor cores are removed.” In other words, the stockpiling of fuel may be permitted to cover only the next refuelling — a far cry from the lifetime stocks Dr. Singh had pledged.

To further crimp India’s fuel access, the Obama-authored stipulation allowing imports for only reasonable operating needs is coupled with the requirements of Hyde Act’s Section 104 (g) (2) (H) and Section 104 (g) (2) (J) that the President annually estimate the amount of uranium mined in India during the previous year and let Congress know whether the imported uranium had affected India’s rate of production of unsafeguarded fissile material.

Obama’s desire that any exemption for India from the rules of the 45-nation NSG similarly restrict Indian access to foreign fuel will be easy to realize, given that Washington has considerable leverage over the handful of international firms that monopolize the global reactor fuel business. To help maintain a tab on India’s nuclear activities, the Senate bill’s Section 108 (a) stipulated that Congress be kept fully informed on India’s: (i) material non-compliance with any obligation; (ii) new nuclear facility construction; (iii) fissile-material production; and (iv) changes in the operational status of nuclear installations. That provision became the Hyde Act’s Section 104 (g) (1)).

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 19 Jun 2008 15:55

From the same article by Brahma Chellaney cited above:

2. Obama helped insert another amendment to ensure that America did not facilitate civil nuclear exports to India by other states, if U.S. exports to New Delhi were terminated under American law. This effectively nullified Dr. Singh’s commitment to Parliament that if fuel shipments were suspended, “the U.S. and India would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries … to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India.”

Obama’s amendment became Section 102 (6) in the Senate bill and was incorporated in the Hyde Act as Section 102 (13). Ominously, mirroring Obama’s criterion on “short-term fluctuations”, Congress has recorded that any “assurance of supply arrangements that the U.S. is party to will be concerned only with disruption of supply of fuel due to market failures or similar reasons, and not due to Indian actions that are inconsistent with the July 18, 2005, commitments, such as a nuclear-explosive test.”

To ensure that no firm in another NSG country exported to India on less-stringent terms, the Hyde Act’s Section 104 (g) (2) (C) is identical to the Senate bill’s Section 108 (b) (3) in mandating that the President’s cyclic “Implementation and Compliance Report” to Congress provide a description of any significant commerce between India and other countries that either was inconsistent with NSG guidelines or would not meet standards applicable to U.S.-origin material. The intent behind this provision is to use the threat of sanctions to block a proposed export by, say, a French or Russian firm on less-rigorous terms.

The point here is that Obama’s call for an effective “deterrent” against Indian testing is fully reflected in the final legislation, which aims to ensure that India would have little room for manoeuvre if the U.S. suspended or terminated cooperation. Also, as he desired, the legislation covers U.S. policy and actions in the NSG. It is thus no surprise that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice assured Congress barely four months ago that any NSG exemption for India will be “completely consistent with the obligations of the Hyde Act.”

Yet, despite this background and his broken promises to Parliament, Dr. Singh, with remarkable insouciance, still pitches for the deal, only to be held back by wiser counsel from Sonia Gandhi. And although a permanent test ban is built into the deal, a despairing Dr. Singh last week chose an unusual setting — a lengthy, prepared speech to less than a dozen service probationers — to make a curious policy pronouncement: “if the CTBT came into being, we will not sign it.” That inexplicably reversed India’s stance that it won’t come in the way of the CTBT’s entry into force.

Whether Obama becomes President or not, his legacy helps constrict India’s access and options under the deal. Indeed, that legacy exposes the myths still driving residual Indian interest in the deal, which Dr. Singh grudgingly acknowledged for the first time “has run into some difficulties.” These myths include the following:

■ the deal offers a magic-carpet ride to resolve India’s self-made uranium crunch by opening the path to unfettered access to foreign fuel;

■ unlike the conditions-laden U.S. waiver, the NSG will grant India a relatively “clean” exemption; and

■ once the deal with the U.S. takes effect, New Delhi would gain access to civil nuclear items and materials from France and Russia on more-favourable political terms.

■ soaring oil prices justify greater emphasis on nuclear power.

There is little link between oil and nuclear energy, because oil is primarily used for transportation and the nuclear choice is for electricity generation.

Indeed, such myths show that if the now-stuck deal traverses to the next stages, India will be in for more nasty surprises.

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 19 Jun 2008 17:24

amit wrote:And I would be very careful in using the adage enemy's enemy is my friend when praising the communists. For example do you think that the BJP and the CPI(M) have the same ulterior motive in opposing the deal? If they do hey, after next election NDA can come to power with the help of the Prakash Karat's of this world - after all the broad foreign policy objectives of the BJP and CPI(M) are the same, oppose US at all costs. And as far as domestic economic policies are concerned there's not much to chose between the UPA and the NDA and I'm sure Karat can live with Advani if he could, for four years, live with MMS.

Cheers!

I find it distressing having the CPI(M) and the BJP spoken in the same vein. No Amit ji, I understand what you are saying, just using the above to bring it up. Not too long ago, we had very wise folks take it even further and bash the NDA with logic that went - at least the left has economic arguments againts the deal, what does the NDA have. That was as close to lying and revealing long denied biases as it got. These sort of comparsions just fuel those false accusations. Very soon someone will say just this and in BOLD letters -

after all the broad foreign policy objectives of the BJP and CPI(M) are the same, oppose US at all costs.

The CPI(M) couldnt believe its luck after the windfall and leverage it got forming a coalition with th UPA. Me thinks, punch drunk and heady with power, they oversold their case to the chinese masters promising the moon and almost got close to delivering it ( of course the fat lady hasnt sung yet).

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 Jun 2008 17:24

If there is no fuel from them (NSG) then there is no safeguard to apply.

But will the IAEA agreement allow the "civil" reactors to be under permanent safeguards that end if no safeguarded fuel is provided?
The privilege of withdrawing a facility from permanent safeguards is normally reserved for a NWS.
"Campaign safeguards" under INFCIRC 66 are a different matter.

Ideally the India specific IAEA agreement would follow the INFCIRC 66 modalities. But will it? GOI will not release the INFCIRC text.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 Jun 2008 17:29

The ideal situation for India would be to have a nuclear arsenal of 10k warheads

Only two nations built arsenals of that size and they paid a huge price in both treasure and their environment for it. Both now wish to lower their arsenals to sub-2k levels with Russia pushing for 1k.

In a world where the hegemonistic superpower has 1000 warheads, India would need 10 times that number? For what?

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 19 Jun 2008 17:51

Amitji,

All I am saying is that just for a few percentage points of extra growth, we need not sacrifice our strategic independence. It is not testing alone that I talk about. Even if you forget about testing, this deal commits us to support an FMCT. A fismat cutoff at a time new revelations show TSP might have a larger arsenal than believed previously. Is is OK to end up with a smaller arsenal than TSP ? I find that unacceptable.

Macaulayism is a "west is best" mindset more than anything else. It is the refusal to believe that self reliant growth is certainly possible even if some extra time will be taken. It also includes a naive belief that the west will somehow help us realise our interests. This mindset must go. We need a leadership capable of understanding the need for military power. Ever since we have been independent "Khadg ka tiraskaar" is what our leadership has done willfully. This must end, and due attention must be paid to build up our strength, the foundation of which should be a strong nuclear deterrent. More than any testing clause, it is the commitment to support FMCT in this deal that prevents this.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 Jun 2008 17:57

In a week, we shall be seeing the end of our strategic nuclear weapons program

At present, India can get nothing from the NSG members. An exception is made for safety - fuel for Tarapur.
Under the deal, if India tests, it may get nothing from NSG members. Exception made for safety, perhaps.

It may be left with some foreign built LWRs requiring enriched U fuel that it cannot itself provide fuel for and some PHWRs that also need imported natural U. No spare parts etc.

That is hardly "the end" of the strategic program. A serious energy shortage yes. Much pain, yes.

"capping".. perhaps...

If India signs FMCT without first building up its fissile material stockpile.. capping in quantity.
If India signs CTBT without first proof testing a modern TN warhead and building adequate simulation and ICF facilities ... capping in quality.

But do either the NSG or IAEA agreements specify FMCT or CTBT?

And a GOI that does not invest in fissile material production or TN design and simulation can achieve capping without signing anything.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 19 Jun 2008 18:23

We never bite nor bark, so why not out source BARC?
India always benefited from gentle foreign rule no?

The supreme confidence of our PM in Congress president is small token. Now our PM has on august occasions had eloquently enumerated in English to the English the benefits of their gentle guidence for 200 years!

See TSP with a fraction of cost has achieved what baba and chachas had as vision.
When there is no power congress can't solve problems can they. So hidebound we shall be for the sake of power. Not a bad deal.
Go hide and seek.
Jai Hide

Ps insiders tell me Pranab dada can't share IAEA agreement because it voilates hide act.according to his shitty bitty understanding.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jun 2008 18:46

ps is right.

Baba and Chacha had both eco and strat in mind. Our misguided brothers have only achieved strat, eco ....???? (BTW, brothers have publicly published their def spending for first time since they got to sow and reap their own grass (to eat?).)

At times I wonder if MMS is dressing for meet with Bush et al in the near future - for an eco meet!!!!! Building muscles with I will sign nara.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 19 Jun 2008 18:49

Acharya wrote:What is conspiracy theory here. I dont understand.
I have met lobby people who have met the US congress members and US senate members. They have told me what are the views of the lawmakers. They have told me who they represent. There are think tanks in DC who have been hired by the govt and business and they are in the reported in the press. There are India focused think tanks AIPAC, USINPAC etc. Is that conspiracy. New ones got created in the last 5 years and they have lobbied hard for the deal. That is a fact also.
Some of these people have told me that they have met the NPAs. It does not take much effort to get these information. All are facts. If you have no access to these info I cant help it.

About parties not allowed to come back to power - you can get the statements of political leaders in the Indian newspapers. Talk to some seasoned political operators in Desh and you can get all the information. Jesus!

Acharya garu, the information you have sought may be first hand but the extrapolation you do is still conspiratorial, isn't it?

For example, you say "this deal has been put together by lobbies" whereas the reality is that this deal is merely being supported by lobbies AFTER it was put together by the Bush admin and GoI. You also say that some of the lobbyists you met say that they met some NPAs. But you extrapolate it to say that NPAs support this deal whereas every available evidence shows that NPAs vehemently oppose this deal. Also, what do you expect political parties to say other than "We do not want our opponents to come to power"?

The facts are not what I question. What I regret is that every odd simple fact or random meeting is used to conclude that "X&Y are working together" etc. That is the conspiracy angle. Anyway, you are entitled to your views. Regards.

enqyoobOLD · Post by **enqyoobOLD** » 19 Jun 2008 19:03

To the postor who asked what has happened on BRF, let me try to remember too:

As shiv pointed out, there were 2,248,998 posts on the Nuclear Deal. In micro-examining the 123 agreement, the anti-Deal debators could not point to anything where the US-India 123 deal was in any way inferior to the US-China 123 deal, and in fact the India deal turned out to be far more responsive and less restrictive. So then the anti-deal debators dropped that line or argument and turned to the "Hyde is the only thing that matters, 123 is irrelevant" theme.

Now shiv has searched through the Hyde law in its final form, and fails to see nkumar's quote. Somehow I am not surprised. Shiv, also please see if you can see any Presidential Signing Statements on the Hyde law. I think there were some, and that defines its final final form.

I see a quote from nkumar above:

strategic reserve has been carefully negated by obama amendment to Hyde. This is highlighted in the last 2 articles that I posted.

That's not what the deal(s) say. They do seem to say that the international agreements do not plan to PROVIDE TO THE GOI much more fuel than is reasonably explained by need to keep CIVILIAN reactors running.

What MMS said is that India will be able to build up a STRATEGIC RESERVE to protect Indian reactors from being held hostage by foreign fuel.

People can see in these things what they want to see. The US-India teams have worked out language that satisfied both the USG and the GOI, and allows the NSG to agree to civilian fuel safeguards.

BTW, ALL nations under NPT that don't have domestic reserves of U, have the same concerns about fuel supply, and fuel prices. That's not to say that India should not worry, but that the conspiracy theories about language in the agreements do not hold up under reasonable examination.

The statement in one of those articles about how China didn't ask anyone, are not right. The US-China agreement was held up in COTUS for 13 years (and so may this one if it doesn't get through soon).

Of course, those who want Testing Now! won't be happy with any of these things.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 19 Jun 2008 19:13

N^3 - Fully agree. Could not have said any better.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jun 2008 19:27

Logic by itself serves no purpose if the fundamental assumptions are bogus. Logically (and mathematically), a false statement or assumption can imply anything. So starting with a bogus assumption can lead one to any sort of conclusion with no basis in logic. It is annoying to see people claim that they are arguing logically, when they are not.

Thanks for refreshing our memories.

I did check the bell curve, etc and found out that my assumptions were: that people read (and retain) my earlier posts and a few major news items.

You are one of the posters who has fueled the conspiracy stuff by highlighting which American visited which state etc. See posts above.

If you can use such logic, please explain why China opposes this deal. BTW, the commies had ALWAYS opposed this deal, period. China opposed it from July 19, 2005.

OK.

Two side to the same coin. This is a Indo-US deal, so entities within these countries are open game – so to speak.

Why Henry K? Actually I would like to add Sam Nunn and there is another Senator that I cannot remember off hand. Henry K cannot get out of bed thinking well of India, thus no matter what he says or does I am suspicious. Sam Nunn, etc….they, as you are aware, are NPAs (which is OK, I have nothing against that). So, their interference in this particular matter must be beyond “civilian” nuclear issues ……. Their involvement has to have a strategic angle; else they will not be there. These are not assumptions, but I will grant that web chat sites are not very ideal to discuss matters such as these, but, questioning plausibility, etc cross the line.

So, just like the question asked by Ramana, mine too was meant to be to “find out” and not a conspiracy related.

On China – the other side of the coin:
• My opposition predates theirs. It is also tiered
• China will become an issue in the IAEA and NSG. Right now they can bark all they want.
• The issues between UPA/Cong and CPs of India that is a problem created by MMS IMHO. He should have been more transparent IMHO long back …… nothing to do with the commies. But, if the CPIs of India have some hidden issues, he should have chalked a plan to deal with it long back – as in 2005. Since J18 MMS seems to be back peddling all the time, even in his own party things seem mismanaged

satyarthi · Post by **satyarthi** » 19 Jun 2008 19:37

Congress party and Mulayam have become quite friendly these days. Sometime ago Mayavati was also friendly with Congress, although there has been a fallout. If by some trickery congress manages to get Mulayam's AND Mayavati's support for the nuke deal, they won't need the left parties' support to survive. Other allies like Lalu and DMK etc have already supported the deal. So if Mayavati starts singing, pro-dealers would know that spring has arrived. although mutual antipathy between Mulayam and Mayavati make this hard to achieve.